5 ms·

So tossing it in wouldn’t cause an eruption or burn off the radiation. But if the volcano erupted then it could send radiation everywhere. Interesting. Is res

So tossing it in wouldn’t cause an eruption or burn off the radiation. But if the volcano erupted then it could send radiation everywhere. Interesting. Is research being done to try figure out safer disposal of nuclear waste?

thesuitonym 6y ago
Really the safest means of disposal is to bury it, but that is fraught with its own problems.
- Mauricebranagh 6y ago
  I did wonder if dumping waste in subduction zones has been looked at.
- bityard 6y ago
  Safest or cheapest? And on what time scale? Because the safest long-term means of disposal is to launch it into the sun, but that's prohibitively expensive and is short-term extremely dangerous (e.g. the rocket exploding or crashing shortly after lift-off).
- mynameisash 6y ago
  If the spent fuel were contained, you could first run it through a breeder reactor[0] to reduce volume by an order of magnitude or two. The remains are still highly radioactive, but now you have much less volume to deal with. I assume that the waste in Chernobyl is largely/entirely distributed and contaminated with sand, dirt, other various debris, and thus probably couldn't benefit from that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Waste_reduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Waste_reductio...
- asdff 6y ago
  The best solution is to bury it on land that is already more irradiated than any more added nuclear waste would make it. There is plenty of land like that.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  What about launching it into space?
  - jandrese 6y ago
    Rockets are not 100% reliable--having one carrying radioactive waste explode on launch would make for a really nasty mess to clean up. Ultimately, the total volume of Radioactive waste ever created is tiny in the grand scheme of things. Burying it is not a technical problem. The problems are entirely political. This is also why breeder reactors don't make sense. They're trying to apply a technical solution to a political problem.
    - merb 6y ago
      > Burying it is not a technical problem. it is. the problem is that it needs to be stored way longer than any human is living. basically there are very few sites which might be able to withstand a timeframe so large without every polluting the environment. you know just burying is not enough, you need to be sure that no water or anything else might break your containments. it's probably impossible to do it and it's also not a good idea to think that burying it and forgetting about it is a good idea either.
      - jandrese 6y ago
        Things that are radioactive for longer than human lifetimes are not very radioactive at all. The danger is more that they are still poisonous. Finding places where you can control the groundwater isn't that hard. We have many candidates. Old salt mines are preferred because the salt slowly flows around the containers and entombs them. This is where the relatively small volume of the radioactive waste is a feature, you don't need a massive number of old mines to handle all of the waste. One or two would be sufficient. Most of the concern about this is people demanding solutions that are grossly more complex and elaborate than the problem really demands. A political problem. Imagine if coal mines had to treat their tailings with the same level of care? They are similarly radioactive after a few years and just as poisonous, but we let them be dumped right into streams. Natural gas is extracted by pumping poisonous chemicals into the ground to break up rocks--greatly increasing the possibility of groundwater contamination. Imagine if they had to extract all of those chemicals back out of the ground and then store them someplace where they could be proven to never leak out again. High level radioactive waste doesn't stay high level for very long by its very nature. This is why nuclear power plants have ponds where they store the hot stuff until it cools down enough for long term storage. After that they just have to be handled like any other nasty industrial chemical, plus some extra shielding to protect the workers from hitting their total yearly exposure limits too quickly.
jtbayly 6y ago
I mean, you seem to be asking in earnest, so I'll answer. Still, the question is silly. Of course research is being done on this. Google is your friend.
- philliphaydon 6y ago
  Well I know we are researching how to /use/ nuclear waste. I believe that’s what one of bill gates projects is trying to do. But I donno if we have just decided burying it is it and that’s it.
  - orwin 6y ago
    The thing is, reusing nuclear waste is possible, but too expensive in the end, compared to renewables. I think there was 4 research reactor that did that in the world, and Russia launched a new one recently. I still think nuclear must be part of the solution NOW (for an effect on CO@ in 2030 and on climate drift on 2050). Nuclear in 50 year will be too late. And i don't think nuclear is "the best", nor do i think that it isn't dangerous, nor do i think we should stop with renewables. Nuclear is a crutch and should be used as such.
- klaussilveira 6y ago
  "There are naive questions, tedious questions, ill-phrased questions, questions put after inadequate self-criticism. But every question is a cry to understand the world. There is no such thing as a dumb question." - Carl Sagan

thesuitonym 6y ago

Really the safest means of disposal is to bury it, but that is fraught with its own problems.

Mauricebranagh 6y ago
I did wonder if dumping waste in subduction zones has been looked at.
bityard 6y ago
Safest or cheapest? And on what time scale? Because the safest long-term means of disposal is to launch it into the sun, but that's prohibitively expensive and is short-term extremely dangerous (e.g. the rocket exploding or crashing shortly after lift-off).
mynameisash 6y ago
If the spent fuel were contained, you could first run it through a breeder reactor[0] to reduce volume by an order of magnitude or two. The remains are still highly radioactive, but now you have much less volume to deal with. I assume that the waste in Chernobyl is largely/entirely distributed and contaminated with sand, dirt, other various debris, and thus probably couldn't benefit from that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Waste_reduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Waste_reductio...
asdff 6y ago
The best solution is to bury it on land that is already more irradiated than any more added nuclear waste would make it. There is plenty of land like that.
Apocryphon 6y ago
What about launching it into space?
- jandrese 6y ago
  Rockets are not 100% reliable--having one carrying radioactive waste explode on launch would make for a really nasty mess to clean up. Ultimately, the total volume of Radioactive waste ever created is tiny in the grand scheme of things. Burying it is not a technical problem. The problems are entirely political. This is also why breeder reactors don't make sense. They're trying to apply a technical solution to a political problem.
  - merb 6y ago
    > Burying it is not a technical problem. it is. the problem is that it needs to be stored way longer than any human is living. basically there are very few sites which might be able to withstand a timeframe so large without every polluting the environment. you know just burying is not enough, you need to be sure that no water or anything else might break your containments. it's probably impossible to do it and it's also not a good idea to think that burying it and forgetting about it is a good idea either.
    - jandrese 6y ago
      Things that are radioactive for longer than human lifetimes are not very radioactive at all. The danger is more that they are still poisonous. Finding places where you can control the groundwater isn't that hard. We have many candidates. Old salt mines are preferred because the salt slowly flows around the containers and entombs them. This is where the relatively small volume of the radioactive waste is a feature, you don't need a massive number of old mines to handle all of the waste. One or two would be sufficient. Most of the concern about this is people demanding solutions that are grossly more complex and elaborate than the problem really demands. A political problem. Imagine if coal mines had to treat their tailings with the same level of care? They are similarly radioactive after a few years and just as poisonous, but we let them be dumped right into streams. Natural gas is extracted by pumping poisonous chemicals into the ground to break up rocks--greatly increasing the possibility of groundwater contamination. Imagine if they had to extract all of those chemicals back out of the ground and then store them someplace where they could be proven to never leak out again. High level radioactive waste doesn't stay high level for very long by its very nature. This is why nuclear power plants have ponds where they store the hot stuff until it cools down enough for long term storage. After that they just have to be handled like any other nasty industrial chemical, plus some extra shielding to protect the workers from hitting their total yearly exposure limits too quickly.

jtbayly 6y ago

I mean, you seem to be asking in earnest, so I'll answer. Still, the question is silly. Of course research is being done on this. Google is your friend.

philliphaydon 6y ago
Well I know we are researching how to /use/ nuclear waste. I believe that’s what one of bill gates projects is trying to do. But I donno if we have just decided burying it is it and that’s it.
- orwin 6y ago
  The thing is, reusing nuclear waste is possible, but too expensive in the end, compared to renewables. I think there was 4 research reactor that did that in the world, and Russia launched a new one recently. I still think nuclear must be part of the solution NOW (for an effect on CO@ in 2030 and on climate drift on 2050). Nuclear in 50 year will be too late. And i don't think nuclear is "the best", nor do i think that it isn't dangerous, nor do i think we should stop with renewables. Nuclear is a crutch and should be used as such.
klaussilveira 6y ago
"There are naive questions, tedious questions, ill-phrased questions, questions put after inadequate self-criticism. But every question is a cry to understand the world. There is no such thing as a dumb question." - Carl Sagan